Web 3.0 anyone?

Hate to burst your bubble ... but Web 3.0 is already taken. It is generally used in reference to what is known as a "Semantic Web", a place where machines can read web pages. In essence, Web 3.0 completes the definition:

Web 1.0 - Owner generated content (traditional web marketing)
Web 2.0 - Visitor generated content (social networking)
Web 3.0 - Machine generated content
 
Oh no doubt fully video-based delivery is a new trend online (of course it's been around for decades as TV). And while disputed, most definitions of web 1.0 and web 2.0 refer soley to the source of the content (and the technical structures in place that allow it to come from anywhere).


By definition of the CONTENT PRODUCER, a website comprised entirely of video, if produced by the website owner/creator, IS web 1.0

Just as a website of nothing but text, if edited/built by the users/visitors, is Web 1.0



Video is Content, and NOTHING more.



And if you want to create a new buzzword, then you might want to make sure it's not already taken, by a more reasonable meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0

The notion of the web 3.0 being a "smart" web falls directly in line with the content originator. Having the computers themselves create & present the content as a new source, and provide for active processing of that content & data (and therefore reliving editorial responsibility from the publisher or the user) would be a new content source, and therefore a valid definition for another 'generation' of the web.
Web 3.0 content coming from AI? Makes perfect sence.



EDIT: Larry beat me to it, but he didn't have to type as much. :)

- Mikko
 
The web cannot be defined by it's content. It is an elaborate data delivery system. What we apply definitions to are the content distributed and how they are utilized.

Web x.0 refers to the mechanism by which the "data stream" is distributed. If I provide my own content, it's 1.0. If you provide my content, it's 2.0. If some non-human source provides my content, it's 3.0
 
Larry R said:
Hate to burst your bubble ... but Web 3.0 is already taken. It is generally used in reference to what is known as a "Semantic Web", a place where machines can read web pages. In essence, Web 3.0 completes the definition:

Web 1.0 - Owner generated content (traditional web marketing)
Web 2.0 - Visitor generated content (social networking)
Web 3.0 - Machine generated content
Click to expand...

It's not that simple, no one even agrees on 2.0 so you can't say 3.0 is set in stone. From Mikko's wikipedia link:

Views on the next stage of the World Wide Web's evolution vary greatly. Some believe that emerging technologies such as the Semantic Web will transform the way the Web is used, and lead to new possibilities in artificial intelligence. Other visionaries suggest that increases in Internet connection speeds, modular web applications, or advances in computer graphics will play the key role in the evolution of the World Wide Web.



See? no one knows! It's wide open folks. No one knows anything...

Tell me it's a stupid idea, or that I'm divining the present, but you can't credibly claim terms are properly defined when the very source you cite says the "Views vary greatly".
 
brianluce said:
It's not that simple, no one even agrees on 2.0 so you can't say 3.0 is set in stone.
Click to expand...

Do a google search on "Web 3.0" you will find many sources linking Web 3.0 with "Semantic Web".
 
You can't define the web by it's content. If you're web site is nothing more than a video, it's a standard website with embedded video content.

It's still Web 1.0 (owner defined content), but the content happens to be video rather than text/images.
 
Larry R said:
Do a google search on "Web 3.0" you will find many sources linking Web 3.0 with "Semantic Web".
Click to expand...

I've googled the hell out of 3.0. And it's the one term that's more convoluted and confused than 2.0. Again, look at Mikko's google link. The few attempts to define it are hopelessly technical--the masses will never ever get their head around something like "Semantic Web", I personally have no idea what it means.

Again, googling web 3.0 overwhelming supports my position that web 3.0 remains largely undefined. Even PC Magazine says in reference to 3.0:

Yes, it's too early to say for sure. In many ways, even Web 2.0 is a work in progress. But it goes without saying that new Net technologies are always under development—inside universities, think tanks, and big corporations, as much as Silicon Valley start-ups—and blogs are already abuzz with talk of the Web's next generation.


You're of course free to define these terms however you want, but you cannot expect consensus, if you don't believe me, just google it. The technology is progressing rapidly, faster than the language that describes it.
 
Mark Seremet is using the Web 4.0 name for his new "discovery engine" project Repliqa.

Web 3.0 is not Web TV btw. WebTV has nothing to do with web 1.0, 2.0 or any other .0. Web TV is just a means of communicating a message in one direction like a photo.

the diff between web 1.0 and 2.0 is that web 1.0 is one-way communication while 2.0 is a two way conversation. web tv is just another version of web 1.0. There are web 2.0 ish projects using web tv out there (Quarterlife is a good example) where the viewers can interact with the producers and suggest where the show should go next. But to make web tv into web 3.0 you would have to make it an instant interaction like if people could somehow insert new content in the videos in real time. And that kind of technology is waaaaay into the future.

Before we start looking for the next golden calf of the internet I think we should focus on solving the current issues with online video content (including the fact it's mostly mindless garbage, the quality is horrible and there's no money in it).

if anyone has anything to input on the Web TV front I am currently looking for contributers for my new blog www.webisthenewtv.com

mor10
*not impressed*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top